OCCUPY WALL STREET

[persiphone]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

Well, actually it works just fine for the 1%. And they don't need any other answers. People are still buying this crap by the bushel. Truthfully these financial terrorists scare everyone with there doom economics. If they don't get what they want the economy will collapse, if they fail we will all shrivel up and die. The 99% needs to protect the 1% because they are our ticket to prosperity. Well we've all been riding that train for awhile and I don't know about you but I don't seem to be prospering so much at all. But they threaten us with if you think it's bad now wait and see if any of the shit storm we've created ever gets spattered on us there will be hell to pay. They threaten us saying if anything happens to move us toward a more equitable distribution of the wealth we will take your jobs and eat you alive. Hell I got news for them they've already done that.

Oh, I'm sure they have plenty of ammo in their arsenal. I bet we get a first hand look at it real soon.

truth be told i'd like to see the whole thing go under. seriously. i can feed myself without money so i'm just not scared of it. they already took my son's college fund and my retirement. my gramma always said.....never get into a fight with someone who has nothing to lose. fear has worked up to this point to spur the masses into voting for crap that screws us in the end. i think the whole doom economics thing has had it's 15 minutes of fame, they just aren't aware that the panic button is broken. we still haven't seen the worst of it. and i say that cuz it just keeps getting worse lol! when we hit the bottom we will all know it and that includes the 1%. you can't eat a 5 million dollar yacht and bullets don't make themselves. yanno who's gonna make it? the granola eating greenies and the survivalist conspiracy theorists! hahahahaa

[Sachita]

I am certainly not counting on SS, money, retirement programs or anything administrated by our government. My retirement plan is owning a big chunk of land free and clear, stock piles of non-gmo organic seeds, lots of hens, more fruit and nut trees and the knowledge to sustain no matter how fucked up it gets.

I do depend on money but could also do without it. Now that, to me, is the ultimate freedom

[persiphone]

Originally Posted by Sachita

I am certainly not counting on SS, money, retirement programs or anything administrated by our government. My retirement plan is owning a big chunk of land free and clear, stock piles of non-gmo organic seeds, lots of hens, more fruit and nut trees and the knowledge to sustain no matter how fucked up it gets.

I do depend on money but could also do without it. Now that, to me, is the ultimate freedom

wouldn't that be lovely? when i say they took my retirement and my son's college fund, i mean i invested hard cash. and now? it's gone. i've never been the recipient of anything from the government until getting a PELL grant to go to college. (thanks Obama! ) i never even take a tax refund. i figure they need it more than me. in fact...thinking back....i have never in my life received a tax refund check. in the times that i have worked for a paycheck and taxes were taken out, i've never technically earned enough to even qualify for filing and i didn't feel like i needed a tax refund so badly that i would annoy myself with such a nightmare institution like the IRS (which i am personally against to begin with) for a few bucks. i'll pass thanks.

i'm rambling. i really really love the idea of being self sufficient. it's a hard life though. but i'm not afraid of hard labor. never have been. it's good to know like minded people.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by persiphone

truth be told i'd like to see the whole thing go under. seriously. i can feed myself without money so i'm just not scared of it. they already took my son's college fund and my retirement. my gramma always said.....never get into a fight with someone who has nothing to lose. fear has worked up to this point to spur the masses into voting for crap that screws us in the end. i think the whole doom economics thing has had it's 15 minutes of fame, they just aren't aware that the panic button is broken. we still haven't seen the worst of it. and i say that cuz it just keeps getting worse lol! when we hit the bottom we will all know it and that includes the 1%. you can't eat a 5 million dollar yacht and bullets don't make themselves. yanno who's gonna make it? the granola eating greenies and the survivalist conspiracy theorists! hahahahaa

Urban dweller here. Never owned any land, never even a house. Came from a long line of no land no home people. Although I will say my grandparents raised chickens in the backyard of 3 story tenement building when i was kid. They also slaughtered pigs and god knows what else down in the basement. I remember roosters crowing up and down the neighborhood so they weren't the only people to do that. Lots of veggies and everybody grew grapes and made wine. However, nobody does that much anymore. I guess there are laws against it. Not the vegetables, the chickens i mean. I guess us land deprived lack of money to buy any urbanites are pretty screwed. Although I think my survival skills are quite honed.

I really do hope the panic button is broke though.

[SoNotHer]

That's been my belief and plan. ;-)

Originally Posted by Sachita

I am certainly not counting on SS, money, retirement programs or anything administrated by our government. My retirement plan is owning a big chunk of land free and clear, stock piles of non-gmo organic seeds, lots of hens, more fruit and nut trees and the knowledge to sustain no matter how fucked up it gets.

I do depend on money but could also do without it. Now that, to me, is the ultimate freedom

[Cin]

They haven't got enough money they are hoarding. Let's find ways for them to get more. I mean the most we can expect from them is that they will have more business lunches with their 35% tips and maybe some extra landscaping and car washing...


Just Say No to Corporate Greed

Repatriation. It's a word many schoolchildren probably haven't yet learned to define or even seen very often outside of spelling bees. But when it comes to corporate taxes, repatriation is the cornerstone of an idea that has the potential to severely hurt millions of children and parents and widen the already historic and unconscionable gap between the rich and the poor.

In its simplest definition, repatriation is bringing something back to its country of origin—returning it back home. One of the solutions to the jobs crisis being proposed by some of our Congressional leaders and lobbied for aggressively by some of the country's richest corporations is a rehash of an old experiment: enacting a repatriation tax holiday that would temporarily allow U.S.-based multinational companies to bring home profits they currently hold overseas at a 5.25 percent tax rate, instead of the usual 35 percent corporate tax rate. Under current tax law, multinational companies generally pay no U.S. corporate taxes on foreign income until those profits are brought back to the U.S. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) explains, “This effectively allows such firms to defer payment of the U.S. corporate income tax on their overseas profits indefinitely, even though they may obtain an immediate tax deduction for many expenses incurred in supporting the same overseas investments. This can produce a negative U.S. corporate income tax—that is, a net government subsidy—for overseas operations. In addition to causing the federal government to lose tax revenue, this structure gives multinationals a significant incentive to shift economic activity—as well as their reported profits—overseas.”

The argument for the repatriation holiday is that giving corporations a huge incentive to bring profits back right now—in the form of an enormous tax break—would bring billions of dollars back to the U.S. economy that would be reinvested and provide a big stimulus to our economy. Corporate proponents and their Congressional bullies argue this will create desperately needed jobs.

But the last time this was tried, under a 2004 Bush Administration plan, it didn't work out that way. Instead, as CBPP points out, “The evidence shows that firms mostly used the repatriated earnings not to invest in U.S. jobs or growth but for purposes that Congress sought to prohibit, such as repurchasing their own stock and paying bigger dividends to their shareholders. Moreover, many firms actually laid off large numbers of U.S. workers even as they reaped multi-billion-dollar benefits from the tax holiday and passed them on to shareholders.” Many economists and scholars believe that if corporations get their way and get another repatriation holiday, history will repeat itself—and once again the corporations and their shareholders, not American workers, families, and children, will be the only winners.

The nonpartisan congressional Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated the holiday would cost the federal government about $80 billion over ten years in lost revenue. The Economic Policy Institute's Andrew Fieldhouse puts it this way: “While there are numerous job creation proposals that would meaningfully lower unemployment, some lawmakers are pushing counterproductive policies disguised as job creation packages. The proposed repeat of the corporate tax repatriation holiday is one such wolf in sheep's clothing.” When the nation is already facing a jobs crisis and many Congressional leaders are threatening to slash nutrition, child care, and other safety net programs children and families rely on as a means of balancing the budget, revisiting a failed idea instead of coming up with real solutions and real jobs is a threat children and families and our country cannot afford. As the Occupy Wall Street protestors are shouting, let's “just say no to corporate greed” and to Congresspeople who continue to raid from the poor and children to curry favor and campaign contributions from the rich.

[Sachita]

Originally Posted by Sachita

I am certainly not counting on SS, money, retirement programs or anything administrated by our government. My retirement plan is owning a big chunk of land free and clear, stock piles of non-gmo organic seeds, lots of hens, more fruit and nut trees and the knowledge to sustain no matter how fucked up it gets.

I do depend on money but could also do without it. Now that, to me, is the ultimate freedom

Oh I should have said I already own my chunk of land free and clear. I refinanced and took 25 acres off my mortgage in the event my mortgage company got freaky. I also put my greenhouse on the free and clear land. I already have the seeds but continue to get things. I have hens but want 100 going all the times.

I need help

[SoNotHer]

Smart. Smart. Smart. I've been doing the same and trying to pick up a few skills in the process. ;-)

I tell anyone, my students included, to invest in land, and preferably land with good soil and water.

Originally Posted by Sachita

Oh I should have said I already own my chunk of land free and clear. I refinanced and took 25 acres off my mortgage in the event my mortgage company got freaky. I also put my greenhouse on the free and clear land. I already have the seeds but continue to get things. I have hens but want 100 going all the times.

I need help

[persiphone]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

Urban dweller here. Never owned any land, never even a house. Came from a long line of no land no home people. Although I will say my grandparents raised chickens in the backyard of 3 story tenement building when i was kid. They also slaughtered pigs and god knows what else down in the basement. I remember roosters crowing up and down the neighborhood so they weren't the only people to do that. Lots of veggies and everybody grew grapes and made wine. However, nobody does that much anymore. I guess there are laws against it. Not the vegetables, the chickens i mean. I guess us land deprived lack of money to buy any urbanites are pretty screwed. Although I think my survival skills are quite honed.

I really do hope the panic button is broke though.

slight derail/

there are ways around this! on my now defunct previous laptop i had plans downloaded for a complete indoor container garden that used old plastic containers and hung on the wall. ya just gotta think out of the urban box a little bit.

/slight derail

[persiphone]

Originally Posted by Sachita

Oh I should have said I already own my chunk of land free and clear. I refinanced and took 25 acres off my mortgage in the event my mortgage company got freaky. I also put my greenhouse on the free and clear land. I already have the seeds but continue to get things. I have hens but want 100 going all the times.

I need help

more slight derailing/

ever thought of a commune?

/more slight derailing

[Sachita]

Originally Posted by persiphone

more slight derailing/

ever thought of a commune?

/more slight derailing

yes and would

[persiphone]

Originally Posted by Sachita

yes and would

don't quote me, but i *think* there are groups that will help you start a CSA farm. look into it there might even be funding available to help you get started.

[SoNotHer]

Yes, and you can find folks who want to work in exchange for room, board and experience through -

http://www.wwoof.org/

That was my plan with my farm, but life presented a personal derail (nice term P.). In the wake of the divorce, I'm looking at the next step.

Intentional communities, permacultual and others, are happening.

Originally Posted by persiphone

don't quote me, but i *think* there are groups that will help you start a CSA farm. look into it there might even be funding available to help you get started.

[Sachita]

Originally Posted by SoNotHer

Yes, and you can find folks who want to work in exchange for room, board and experience through -

http://www.wwoof.org/

That was my plan with my farm, but life presented a personal derail (nice term P.). In the wake of the divorce, I'm looking at the next step.

Intentional communities, permacultual and others, are happening.

been there, done most of this already. In theory it sounds great but the reality another story.

the farm is available to anyone who wants to live on it, grow on it and start csa or anything else. I just don't have housing. In the spring I'll have a bathroom and shower built off the barn. A few people talked about getting rent to own sheds and converting them so all they need is a shower and potty. Or build a treehouse, cobb house, tent. I have plenty of woods and a big creek all along one whole side.

I'm sure I started a thread some time ago. I'm always open to anything that has to do with sustainable living

[persiphone]

Originally Posted by SoNotHer

Yes, and you can find folks who want to work in exchange for room, board and experience through -

http://www.wwoof.org/

That was my plan with my farm, but life presented a personal derail (nice term P.). In the wake of the divorce, I'm looking at the next step.

Intentional communities, permacultual and others, are happening.

aaahhh divorce. gotta love it. i wish we could divorce wall street. (trying to stay on topic) the only good thing to come out of things like divorces are the next steps. i hope yours are meaningful, adventurous, and bring you self accomplishment ever thought of getting involved in a CSA?

(ok i promise not to derail anymore)

[SoNotHer]

Ah, this made me laugh out loud. Thank you.

Oh, yeah, already have about the CSA. You're preaching to the choir, P. ;-)
But I do the same, so rock on.

Still laughing..... great sentiment to take the gym with me. Have a good one my OWS kindred spirits!

Originally Posted by persiphone

aaahhh divorce. gotta love it. i wish we could divorce wall street. (trying to stay on topic) the only good thing to come out of things like divorces are the next steps. i hope yours are meaningful, adventurous, and bring you self accomplishment ever thought of getting involved in a CSA?

(ok i promise not to derail anymore)

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by persiphone

[COLOR="Purple"]there are antibiotic resistant genes in GMOs as well. what i find interesting is that there was DNA specifically engineered to be antibiotic resistant in a lab in America and then it was pumped into the food supply all nice and quiet.

Can you explain what you mean by "DNA specifically engineered to be antibiotic resistant" and "pumped into the food supply"? I ask for a couple of reasons:

1) Antibiotics do not, strictly speaking, affect 'naked' DNA. (Here I mean DNA that isn't in some living thing.) Antibiotics affect, well, bacterials but not viruses (RNA) and DNA is RNA with an extra strand, some sugar and one different base (T in DNA is U in RNA). So what doesn't effect RNA also doesn't effect DNA.

2) What do you mean by "pumped into the food supply" in the context of DNA? This seems to violate the central dogma of molecular biology. Put simply, DNA codes for proteins. So DNA that isn't coding for something in the context of being in the presence of a living thing isn't' doing anything. So how can DNA, absent a body in which to express itself, be *doing* anything? Are you saying that it is making antibiotic resistant proteins? That doesn't really make sense unless you are talking about it being inside a living thing.

3) Are you saying that someone cooked up DNA as a bacteriophage (a virus that infects bacteria)? If so, why on Earth would they have it code for resistance to antibiotics since the whole purpose of a bacteriophage would be to try to kill a bacteria not make it more resistant to antibiotics. What's more, there's a far less expensive way they could get the same effect. Simply have people take too many antibiotics, not use them correctly, use a lot of antibacterial soaps so that we're constantly turning the selective volume on bacteria up to eleven. Wait, that's what we're doing now.

I will admit that I do not read all of the literature but I do try to keep up with what is happening in molecular genetics particularly as it relates to our ongoing battle against pathogens. I'm not aware of the work you're talking about and really am not sure that I understand what you're saying. I don't want to derail the thread so if you want to write me privately or put it on its own thread, I really would like to understand what it is you're saying. Thanks.

meanwhile, the media is all about telling us that OVERuse of antibiotics is the real problem...not that that ISN'T a problem...but i suspect it's not THE problem. same with the use of antibiotics in meat. is it a good practice? no. is it bad for you to eat meat that has been grown with antibiotics? probably. but what we're NOT talking about is the specifically engineered DNA that was specifically made to be antibiotic resistant floating around in GMO foods that are neither labeled on products nor regulated.

Actually, the explanation that it's because of the overuse of antibacterials is actually the most simple and the most likely. Since bacteria are living things and since all living things are subject to variation, Darwinian selection operates on bacteria just as it does everything else. Since antibiotics literally kill bacteria and do so by making various chemical tricks happen, any variation that made a bacteria more resistant to that chemical attack would cause it to leave around more descendants than others. What has been going on since we first started using antibiotics is we have been selecting for antibacterial resistance in TB, staph, e. coli, and every other bacterial pathogen we care about. We've been using antibacterials since 1940 so just over 70 years. Given the very fast generation times of most bacteria (every 24 minutes for e. coli, under ideal conditions) and the fact that bacteria are gregarious with their genes and will just share and pick them up from any old bacterial colony we should expect resistance to naturally evolve in a population. It would be remarkable if it didn't happen.

So here I have to ask which is more likely? That bacteria are subject to Darwinian selection and that introducing antibiotics into the ecology of bacteria would inevitably (and rather quickly) lead to strains of bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics OR someone for no good reason introduced antibiotic resistance into the ecology of mammal infecting bacteria *knowing* that resistance was already evolving? (It's been known that it was happening all of my adult life, I first encountered this in 1991.)


Cheers
Aj

[Cin]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Can you explain what you mean by "DNA specifically engineered to be antibiotic resistant" and "pumped into the food supply"? I ask for a couple of reasons:

1) Antibiotics do not, strictly speaking, affect 'naked' DNA. (Here I mean DNA that isn't in some living thing.) Antibiotics affect, well, bacterials but not viruses (RNA) and DNA is RNA with an extra strand, some sugar and one different base (T in DNA is U in RNA). So what doesn't effect RNA also doesn't effect DNA.

2) What do you mean by "pumped into the food supply" in the context of DNA? This seems to violate the central dogma of molecular biology. Put simply, DNA codes for proteins. So DNA that isn't coding for something in the context of being in the presence of a living thing isn't' doing anything. So how can DNA, absent a body in which to express itself, be *doing* anything? Are you saying that it is making antibiotic resistant proteins? That doesn't really make sense unless you are talking about it being inside a living thing.

3) Are you saying that someone cooked up DNA as a bacteriophage (a virus that infects bacteria)? If so, why on Earth would they have it code for resistance to antibiotics since the whole purpose of a bacteriophage would be to try to kill a bacteria not make it more resistant to antibiotics. What's more, there's a far less expensive way they could get the same effect. Simply have people take too many antibiotics, not use them correctly, use a lot of antibacterial soaps so that we're constantly turning the selective volume on bacteria up to eleven. Wait, that's what we're doing now.

I will admit that I do not read all of the literature but I do try to keep up with what is happening in molecular genetics particularly as it relates to our ongoing battle against pathogens. I'm not aware of the work you're talking about and really am not sure that I understand what you're saying. I don't want to derail the thread so if you want to write me privately or put it on its own thread, I really would like to understand what it is you're saying. Thanks.



Actually, the explanation that it's because of the overuse of antibacterials is actually the most simple and the most likely. Since bacteria are living things and since all living things are subject to variation, Darwinian selection operates on bacteria just as it does everything else. Since antibiotics literally kill bacteria and do so by making various chemical tricks happen, any variation that made a bacteria more resistant to that chemical attack would cause it to leave around more descendants than others. What has been going on since we first started using antibiotics is we have been selecting for antibacterial resistance in TB, staph, e. coli, and every other bacterial pathogen we care about. We've been using antibacterials since 1940 so just over 70 years. Given the very fast generation times of most bacteria (every 24 minutes for e. coli, under ideal conditions) and the fact that bacteria are gregarious with their genes and will just share and pick them up from any old bacterial colony we should expect resistance to naturally evolve in a population. It would be remarkable if it didn't happen.

So here I have to ask which is more likely? That bacteria are subject to Darwinian selection and that introducing antibiotics into the ecology of bacteria would inevitably (and rather quickly) lead to strains of bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics OR someone for no good reason introduced antibiotic resistance into the ecology of mammal infecting bacteria *knowing* that resistance was already evolving? (It's been known that it was happening all of my adult life, I first encountered this in 1991.)


Cheers
Aj

I don't want to derail the the thread either, but I do want to understand this as well. From what I can gather, and believe me gathering hurts my head, DNA used as markers in genetic engineering are somehow or other antibiotic resistant. I don't think it is a purposeful thing, it is a by product of using markers. At least that is what it sounded like to me. Then there is something about it being able to possibly do some kind of horizontal gene transfer thing, especially surrounding e-coli, which seems to be useful for genetic modification and we all have some so when we eat gmos that have this antibiotic resistant dna we might be developing it also. Or something like that anyway. Not sure how proven it is. Europe seems more disturbed by it than we are in the U.S. But even there some study decided it wasn't much of a threat to humans but two scientists disagreed and wanted an addendum added to the study. Or something like that. I can't find the study anymore. Read about it awhile ago. Anyway it doesn't sound like a great idea to me. And it seems like a more direct way to find oneself resistant to antibiotics. I think they have been doing this since 1970 or so. Does this make any sense?

[persiphone]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Can you explain what you mean by "DNA specifically engineered to be antibiotic resistant" and "pumped into the food supply"? I ask for a couple of reasons:

1) Antibiotics do not, strictly speaking, affect 'naked' DNA. (Here I mean DNA that isn't in some living thing.) Antibiotics affect, well, bacterials but not viruses (RNA) and DNA is RNA with an extra strand, some sugar and one different base (T in DNA is U in RNA). So what doesn't effect RNA also doesn't effect DNA.

2) What do you mean by "pumped into the food supply" in the context of DNA? This seems to violate the central dogma of molecular biology. Put simply, DNA codes for proteins. So DNA that isn't coding for something in the context of being in the presence of a living thing isn't' doing anything. So how can DNA, absent a body in which to express itself, be *doing* anything? Are you saying that it is making antibiotic resistant proteins? That doesn't really make sense unless you are talking about it being inside a living thing.

3) Are you saying that someone cooked up DNA as a bacteriophage (a virus that infects bacteria)? If so, why on Earth would they have it code for resistance to antibiotics since the whole purpose of a bacteriophage would be to try to kill a bacteria not make it more resistant to antibiotics. What's more, there's a far less expensive way they could get the same effect. Simply have people take too many antibiotics, not use them correctly, use a lot of antibacterial soaps so that we're constantly turning the selective volume on bacteria up to eleven. Wait, that's what we're doing now.

I will admit that I do not read all of the literature but I do try to keep up with what is happening in molecular genetics particularly as it relates to our ongoing battle against pathogens. I'm not aware of the work you're talking about and really am not sure that I understand what you're saying. I don't want to derail the thread so if you want to write me privately or put it on its own thread, I really would like to understand what it is you're saying. Thanks.



Actually, the explanation that it's because of the overuse of antibacterials is actually the most simple and the most likely. Since bacteria are living things and since all living things are subject to variation, Darwinian selection operates on bacteria just as it does everything else. Since antibiotics literally kill bacteria and do so by making various chemical tricks happen, any variation that made a bacteria more resistant to that chemical attack would cause it to leave around more descendants than others. What has been going on since we first started using antibiotics is we have been selecting for antibacterial resistance in TB, staph, e. coli, and every other bacterial pathogen we care about. We've been using antibacterials since 1940 so just over 70 years. Given the very fast generation times of most bacteria (every 24 minutes for e. coli, under ideal conditions) and the fact that bacteria are gregarious with their genes and will just share and pick them up from any old bacterial colony we should expect resistance to naturally evolve in a population. It would be remarkable if it didn't happen.

So here I have to ask which is more likely? That bacteria are subject to Darwinian selection and that introducing antibiotics into the ecology of bacteria would inevitably (and rather quickly) lead to strains of bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics OR someone for no good reason introduced antibiotic resistance into the ecology of mammal infecting bacteria *knowing* that resistance was already evolving? (It's been known that it was happening all of my adult life, I first encountered this in 1991.)


Cheers
Aj

when creating GMO food, a gene selected for antibiotic resistance is spliced into DNA of plant cells. i'm gonna copy and paste a couple things for you:

Antibiotic Resistance Marker Genes in Genetically Engineered Foods
2002-06-19

Executive Summary



No federal laws have ever been passed to govern the regulation of genetically engineered foods and crops. The regulations in place, cobbled together under existing statutes, require no mandatory pre-market or post-market health testing. When the regulations were legally challenged in the 1980s, the court found they were flawed but did not set them aside, reasoning that they were only an initial effort to set policy. Instead, the regulations remain largely in place, although weakened over time. One result of this lax oversight is that potentially unsafe practices, such as the inclusion of antibiotic resistance marker genes, have gone forward with far too little scientific and public debate and scrutiny.

Many genetically engineered crops on the market currently contain antibiotic resistance marker genes because of the imprecision of the gene insertion process. Scientists use these genes to determine whether a gene has inserted itself into a target organism. As a result of incorporating these antibiotic resistance genes, these crops threaten the already growing problem of antibiotic resistance, which the world medical community acknowledges as a serious public health concern. Infectious diseases are responsible for one-quarter of all the deaths in the world, second only to cardiovascular diseases. As new strains of bacteria and viruses emerge that are resistant to drugs and antibiotics, infections become more difficult to treat.

The market for genetically engineered crops hinges in large part upon their acceptance by food processors. Food companies such as Kraft Foods, the largest food company in the United States and the second largest in the world, can join the call for an end to antibiotic resistance marker genes and tell biotechnology companies they do not want to put their customers at risk. Corporations have set a precedent for this type of action: McDonald's and other large corporate consumers of chicken have played a significant role in reducing in the use of antibiotics fed to chickens for non-therapeutic purposes. If food processors, as potential customers, clearly articulate that antibiotic resistance marker genes are unacceptable, manufacturers will have no incentive to continue their use.

Antibiotic resistance marker genes are just one example of how genetically engineered crops should be better regulated, so products that should never make it to market do not, and health concerns are addressed before, not after, products are commercialized. In order to accomplish this goal with regards to antibiotic resistance marker genes, products on the market with them should be removed, and no new products should be approved that contain antibiotic resistance marker genes. In addition, the state Public Interest Research Groups, along with our coalition partners in Genetically Engineered Food Alert, have issued the following call to action:

Genetically engineered food ingredients or crops should not be allowed on the market unless:

1) Independent safety testing demonstrates they have no harmful effects on human health or the environment,
2) They are labeled to ensure the consumer's right to know, and
3) The biotechnology corporations that manufacture them are held responsible for any harm.



~and to answer the technical questions (and thanks i know what a phage is lol!)


Horizontal gene transfer

Horizontal gene transfer has been reported between distantly related bacteria, and from bacteria to
yeast, mammalian cells and plant cells.
The few examples of transfer from plants to bacteria indicated by DNA sequence comparisons and
the lack of experimental confirmation suggest that the frequency of evolutionary successful gene
transfer from plants to bacteria is extremely low. However this inference is based on a small number
of experimental studies and indications in the scientific literature.
Detection of horizontal gene transfer events is difficult due to the limitations of the techniques
available. Unequivocal proof requires isolation of the putative transformed bacteria for thorough
genetic characterisation.
The rate of gene transfer from plants to bacteria is insignificant compared to gene transfer between
micro-organisms. Almost any type of bacterium has the potential to transfer DNA to any other type
of bacterium if it contains a broad host range gene transfer element.

Antibiotic resistance genes and human health

The presence of the antibiotic resistance gene by itself is not associated with any adverse health
effects.
There is in vitro evidence that free DNA in human saliva is capable of transforming a naturally
competent human oral bacterium (Mercer et al, 1999). Since the regions preceding the stomach are
likely to have the highest concentrations of intact DNA entering with the diet further research is
needed to establish whether transformation of oral bacteria occurs at significant frequencies in vivo.
Although most ingested DNA is likely to be degraded and diluted in the human gastro-intestinal
tract, natural transformation of gut epithelial cells or micro-organisms cannot be completely ruled
out.
Research in mice indicates that DNA can survive digestion and uptake by gut epithelial cells occurs,
however at levels of DNA intake unlikely to be encountered in a normal diet (Schubbert et al, 1997).
The mechanism of DNA uptake by gut epithelial cells is unknown and its significance is unclear.
If DNA uptake does occur in humans critical factors are the presence of regulatory sequences that
allow gene expression and the presence of selective pressure. Without selective pressure it is highly.......

......blahblahblah.....i can attach that entire pdf to your email if you like.


i understand that by the act of processing foods...let's take a box of Cheez-Its for example (a common GMO containing food)....clearly bacterias and therefore their DNA would not survive the process of the making of a Cheez-It. so the bacteria itself dies, but where does the DNA litter go? also, GMO food products are being fed to our meat supply, while simultaneously being fed antibiotics or being injected. (actually i think it's strictly in the feed now cuz injections are too expensive) we then, eat that meat, and not always overly well done. to me, it seems like the bacteria or even the DNA litter of said bacteria were to survive it would be here. however, stranger things have happened.

[Ebon]

Occupy Update from RT (the only real news station left)



Added another video